How to sell next-gen consoles, Marketing, Positioning, and Pricing [2020]

[eastmen]

I take it you're not a potential Xbox owner & so you're concerned how this will affect third-party titles on PS5? Did the XB1 affect the quality of third-party games on PS4?

Tommy McClain

Also this isn't 2013 the amount of dynamic resolution scaling and things like fideltyfx and dlss have increased.

Its not as good as 4k but gives much better performance and is a step up from 1080p. This can be a great feature for lockhart. Not only that but its a feature in rdna 1. We should hopefully see an improved version for rdna 2. perhaps something with machine learning like dlss


My question to people who are worried about next gen being held back is this. There are 2 announced next gen systems and 1 rumored. Only one of the consoles has the most tflops. Because of that should only that console exist ? Should we scratch all consoles with lower tflops ?

 

[AlNom]

Mind you, it remains to be seen if they can pull off something like DLSS considering they lack the overall performance of dedicated tensor cores, which far exceeds what the consoles seemingly provide versus an RTX 2060, for instance.

 

[iroboto]

Mind you, it remains to be seen if they can pull off something like DLSS considering they lack the overall performance of dedicated tensor cores, which far exceeds what the consoles seemingly provide versus an RTX 2060, for instance.

they can.
it can run on an intel igpu.

but not if you're demanding high frame rates.

 

[function]

Is it any less acceptable to a low budget gamer on 1080p compared to a person gaming on a 4K screen?

I mean, you get what you pay for. People know that really. And I'm sure the S version of this game would be better than a PS4 or X1 version, or no version at all.

I do think that the S could be better provisioned for 1080p than the XSX is for 4K though. As we all know S is apparently 4 (and a bit?) TF so that's 1/3 the compute. But as I think I said earlier, I'm guessing 32 ROPs and based on 10GB at least 280 GB/s if they're using GDDR6, so about half of the XSX in those areas. Basically 1/3 or better at worst.

But even just taking the 1/3 figure, that hypothetical 1800 ~ 1440p (+ reconstruction etc) on XSX becomes 1040 ~ 830p + reconstruction etc. Or possibly higher if the S does indeed have 32 ROPs and 280 GB/s+.

So dynamic 1800p becomes basically dynamic 1080p. I mean, seems fine to me.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That makes no sense whatsoever. XBO-X can target 1080p 60fps if developers want and other feature differences won't make a huge difference.
You're effectively hinging on the idea that XBOX is forced to target 4k and XBSS can do much better on 1080p because it doesn't have the same constraints.

I don't see any reason for devs to not target 1080p on XBOX if they wish that doesn't apply to XBSS. In fact, in many cases, they probably should.

You're massively underselling the hardware differences. The only thing relatively similar is the Raw FLOPs count where XBO-X has an advantage and even that is eroded by increased efficiency (utilization of resources) from RDNA2 in XBSS.

The XBSS has a MASSIVE (not even close) advantage in CPU power and a much larger advantage WRT to storage speed. If you're discounting those two things as not making a huge difference then you are also saying that the PS5 and XBSX aren't much more powerful than current mid-gen consoles, so why bother?

Add to that support for Hardware RT acceleration in XBSS and other technologies that don't exist on the XBO-X.

Basically the XBO-X is significantly weaker than the XBSS is pretty much every way except for raw FLOPs count. And considering that raw FLOPs gives no indication of architectural efficiency the XBO-X is inferior to it WRT GPU compute and rendering. And this isn't even getting into packed int4, int8, and int16 that may get used this generation.

The fact remains that the XBSS is closer to PS5 and XBSX than it is to XBO-X from a performance standpoint.

Regards,
SB

 

[Strange]

You're massively underselling the hardware differences. The only thing relatively similar is the Raw FLOPs count where XBO-X has an advantage and even that is eroded by increased efficiency (utilization of resources) from RDNA2 in XBSS.

The XBSS has a MASSIVE (not even close) advantage in CPU power and a much larger advantage WRT to storage speed. If you're discounting those two things as not making a huge difference then you are also saying that the PS5 and XBSX aren't much more powerful than current mid-gen consoles, so why bother?

Add to that support for Hardware RT acceleration in XBSS and other technologies that don't exist on the XBO-X.

Basically the XBO-X is significantly weaker than the XBSS is pretty much every way except for raw FLOPs count. And considering that raw FLOPs gives no indication of architectural efficiency the XBO-X is inferior to it WRT GPU compute and rendering. And this isn't even getting into packed int4, int8, and int16 that may get used this generation.

The fact remains that the XBSS is closer to PS5 and XBSX than it is to XBO-X from a performance standpoint.

Regards,
SB

The reason for your perceived "underselling" isn't my fault. Microsoft just currently hasn't shown too many things to "sell", and factoring in a 66% reduction in raw power in the GPU, there simply isn't much left.

Difference between XBSS and PS5/XBXX: Roughly a difference of PS4 and PS4 PRO/XBO-X, comparatively.
We know what to expect. They have about 2.5~3 times the raw power of current "upgraded' gen.
PS4 pro 4.2TF=> 10TF*~arbitrary multiplier of 1.3= 13 TF or so, about 3x
XBO-X 6TF=> 12TF*~arbitrary multiplier of 1.3= 15.6 TF or so, about 2.6x

Difference between XBO-X and XBXX?
Well we actually have that.

You're trying to wedge in a middleground to fit the XBSS that's close to the XBSX in an already "incremental" increase.
I don't see those features making a massive difference, thus I'd put XBSS in the realm of XBO-X.
"Massive" CPU advantage translates to frame rate improvement, where 20% or so can be very good. That's what? 30FPS =>36FPS?
SSD loads faster, I never claimed them not to, but support for current gen... (you get the idea)
Extra RT features: well, I just don't see a RTX 2060 doing impressive work on RT, let alone ~3/4 the power of one.
Show me impressive RT work on XBXX first, then we'll talk about impressive features on a XBSS, because currently it's a hard sell when Microsoft needs most of the library to still support the old consoles (and PCs for the matter), and exclusives like Halo Infinite don't paint the XBXX too well.

Ultimately it's the XBO-X being too high up to jam a XBSS in between. If the Microsoft was to fit a the XBSS between the XBO-S and XBSX when they never made a XBO-X, then I'd see the merit of the strategy.

 

[Panino Manino]

Seriously, what's the "point" of this launch? There will be no big Halo showcase, there will be no big exclusives at launch, on the contrary. The highlight of this new hardware launch is that... you don't need to buy it to play it's games. And more, there'll be another version, a cheaper version for those who really want to buy a Microsoft hardware.
Why would anyone buy the X? I really can't understand what is the selling point.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Seriously, what's the "point" of this launch? There will be no big Halo showcase, there will be no big exclusives at launch, on the contrary. The highlight of this new hardware launch is that... you don't need to buy it to play it's games. And more, there'll be another version, a cheaper version for those who really want to buy a Microsoft hardware.
Why would anyone buy the X? I really can't understand what is the selling point.

Why do people buy new graphics cards?

 

[BRiT]

To add on to that ... Why do PC Gamers buy new CPU? New NVME? More RAM?


To have a better gaming experience.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The reason for your perceived "underselling" isn't my fault. Microsoft just currently hasn't shown too many things to "sell", and factoring in a 66% reduction in raw power in the GPU, there simply isn't much left.

Difference between XBSS and PS5/XBXX: Roughly a difference of PS4 and PS4 PRO/XBO-X, comparatively.
We know what to expect. They have about 2.5~3 times the raw power of current "upgraded' gen.
PS4 pro 4.2TF=> 10TF*~arbitrary multiplier of 1.3= 13 TF or so, about 3x
XBO-X 6TF=> 12TF*~arbitrary multiplier of 1.3= 15.6 TF or so, about 2.6x

Difference between XBO-X and XBXX?
Well we actually have that.

You're trying to wedge in a middleground to fit the XBSS that's close to the XBSX in an already "incremental" increase.
I don't see those features making a massive difference, thus I'd put XBSS in the realm of XBO-X.
"Massive" CPU advantage translates to frame rate improvement, where 20% or so can be very good. That's what? 30FPS =>36FPS?
SSD loads faster, I never claimed them not to, but support for current gen... (you get the idea)
Extra RT features: well, I just don't see a RTX 2060 doing impressive work on RT, let alone ~3/4 the power of one.
Show me impressive RT work on XBXX first, then we'll talk about impressive features on a XBSS, because currently it's a hard sell when Microsoft needs most of the library to still support the old consoles (and PCs for the matter), and exclusives like Halo Infinite don't paint the XBXX too well.

Ultimately it's the XBO-X being too high up to jam a XBSS in between. If the Microsoft was to fit a the XBSS between the XBO-S and XBSX when they never made a XBO-X, then I'd see the merit of the strategy.

Well, I can certainly see you are one of the ones who doesn't believe either Mark Cerny or Andrew Goosen who believe that PS5/XBSX is a large advancement over the previous generation and not chiefly because of the FLOPs count. The increase in GPU power is the least impressive and least interesting thing about the next gen consoles.

You're in the camp of PS5/XBSX being weak and only a small incremental upgrade over the previous generation. As all the things you discount about the XBSS are things that are touted as the reason the next generation will offer large advancements in game presentation.

It's cool. The things I'm most excited about with the next generation are how the CPU and SSDs will be leveraged WRT to game presentation (more than just graphics rendering). As well, I'm actually hopeful we may finally get some advancement with regard to sound presentation in games. If it was down to FLOPs alone, then this next generation would be incredibly disappointing.

Regards,
SB

 

[Strange]

Well, I can certainly see you are one of the ones who doesn't believe either Mark Cerny or Andrew Goosen who believe that PS5/XBSX is a large advancement over the previous generation and not chiefly because of the FLOPs count. The increase in GPU power is the least impressive and least interesting thing about the next gen consoles.

You're in the camp of PS5/XBSX being weak and only a small incremental upgrade over the previous generation. As all the things you discount about the XBSS are things that are touted as the reason the next generation will offer large advancements in game presentation.

It's cool. The things I'm most excited about with the next generation are how the CPU and SSDs will be leveraged WRT to game presentation (more than just graphics rendering). As well, I'm actually hopeful we may finally get some advancement with regard to sound presentation in games. If it was down to FLOPs alone, then this next generation would be incredibly disappointing.

Regards,
SB

You're expressing stuff that I pretty much avoided saying because that's NOT what I believe.

To make things clear. Microsoft has put themselves in the position to HAVE to support Xbox One S/X on "next gen" titles.
In effect they're forcing the game to avoid using advanced features the centerpiece of new titles, and as a result we get the Halo Infinite incident: something designed for XBO-X and doesn't really showcase the XBSX.
This reality regulates hardware advancements to post their gains in the area of FPS and resolution, and loading times as to retain compatibility.
So what does the XBSS have over the XBO-X? Well we know already: you're going to see improvements in resolution, fps, and loading times, if any.
When you talk about resolution, fps, and loading times, these are derived from raw power.
FPS and resolution are exactly the points Microsoft is flouting around that they will do better with 12 TFLOPS.
Going by their reasoning, what's wrong with saying that the XBSS with the rumored 4TFLOPS will perform comparably with the XBO-X with 6TF?
I don't see any conflicts going down this path.

Their strategy negates pretty much all hardware feature sets the XBSS has over the XBO-X, except for the SSD.
Trust me, we will see in November/December DF videos that directly compare XBSS and the XBO-X. They will more often than not be quite comparable. I don't expect anything above a 15% performance difference between the two consoles, and quite frankly I'm not sure which one will come out on top.


Sony doesn't have that problem. I don't think I have to explain why and I'm going to refrain from bringing them up too much in this thread.

 

[Proelite]

Trust me, we will see in November/December DF videos that directly compare XBSS and the XBO-X. They will more often than not be quite comparable. I don't expect anything above a 15% performance difference between the two consoles, and quite frankly I'm not sure which one will come out on top.

Xss CPU is over 4x X1x's in horsepower. This enables games to have framerates that are unachievable on Xb1x.

Xss can run games 4k 30fps like the X1x, but the X1x won't be able to do 1080p 120fps.

I mean we're already seeing titles run at locked 30 on Xb1 and unstable 60 on Xb1x resulting from the CPU upgrades.

 

[Strange]

I mean we're already seeing titles run at locked 30 on Xb1 and unstable 60 on Xb1x resulting from the CPU upgrades.

XB1X has 6TF and XB1S 1.3TF, and their CPU difference effectively only amounts to a difference of 1.75GHz Jaguar to a 2.3GHz Jaguar.

So we're forgetting how the GPU had a 4+X jump and giving all the credit to the CPU upgrade? gotcha.

Lets not forget that even if the CPU can do it's job in 1/2 of the time, and the GPU can blaze through everything in absolute no time, that will only get you from 30fps to 60fps at the maximum. (33ms CPU + 0ms GPU=> 16.5 ms CPU = 0MS GPU)

 

[Proelite]

Lets not forget that even if the CPU can do it's job in 1/2 of the time, and the GPU can blaze through everything in no time, that will only get you from 30fps to 60fps at the maximum.

That's not different from what I was saying.

 

[Strange]

That's not different from what I was saying.

So you're implying that there is little to no GPU time required? Might as well as remove the GPU.

 

[PSman1700]

Sony doesn't have that problem. I don't think I have to explain why and I'm going to refrain from bringing them up too much in this thread.

Amazing how Sony always makes it into Xbox threads for a comparison that sone feel has to be made

 

[Strange]

Amazing how Sony always makes it into Xbox threads for a comparison that sone feel has to be made

You might want to read the thread to see who's actively bringing up Sony.

 

[PSman1700]

Why do people buy new graphics cards?

To add on to that ... Why do PC Gamers buy new CPU? New NVME? More RAM?


To have a better gaming experience.

Yes, and theres where some are confused i think. MS/Xbox isn't doing the traditional generational shift unlike Sony. MS have said something before about rolling generations, like the PC where hardware always evolves and where scaling is more important.
The differences are that with Sony you go from 2013 hw to 2020 hw in one day, whereas with MS you go that route much more slowly, but the advantage of that is that they could have have upgraded hardware more often instead of the usual 7 years on the same hardware.

On pc you get Ray tracing almost mid-gen, DLSS, mesh shaders, AI/tensor etc, and games can adapt to that. Having that kind of rolling generations hardware/software in a console environment seems intresting atleast. They could offer many boxes from lower to ultra high end for those that want to. Xbox is a service with hardware to offer in different ranges.
Perhaps abit like the steam machine.

Yes you wont get true next gen graphics day one (does sony even? i think FW is the only one so far), but longer in the generation games could be looking much better on MS's platforms.

 

[PSman1700]

You might want to read the thread to see who's actively bringing up Sony.

I might, all i see so far is that you had the last word on it though

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I take it you're not a potential Xbox owner & so you're concerned how this will affect third-party titles on PS5?

Why would I not be a potential xbox owner? I can probably afford both consoles within the next couple of years and I'm on xbox gold for PC. If I feel like the SeriesX is a good purchase I'll buy one.
And to be honest, all it takes for me to drop the PS5 as "main console" is for Sony's first parties to ryan-johnson their flagship sequels, like what Naughty Dog did to Last of Us 2.

Did the XB1 affect the quality of third-party games on PS4?

Yes, it did during the first couple of years of both consoles. This is a Digital Foundry article from late 2014:

out of the 40 game comparisons we've carried out since the consoles launched, our tally looks like this:

• 13 games where we have parity or very minor differences
• 6 titles where each has its advantages/disadvantages - no overall winner
• 6 titles where a 900p to 1080p (or equivalent) PS4 resolution boost is the only real differentiating factor
• 14 titles where the PS4 advantage is noticeable and isn't just limited to resolution (performance or visual effects enhancements too)
• 1 title with a clear Xbox One advantage

So about half the multiplatform games from the first year after the consoles' release would not show any clear advantage towards the PS4 that sported >40% higher GPU compute performance, 88% higher fillrate and 150% higher main memory bandwidth (for which the small 32MB esram pool proved to not be very effective at mitigating).
This isn't some conspiracy theory, as some studios even openly admitted they were aiming for graphics parity between xbone and ps4.
Batman: Arkham Knight Aiming for Graphics Parity Across Xbox One and PS4
Assassin's Creed Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One

I'm not clear on such given the scalability of graphics (# of samples, buffer resolution, or simply Disable). The biggest issue has been the CPU-side, which is fundamental to the overall game design (edit: and there is no indication that the CPU is severely impacted).

If it's not just a flag that says "render SeriesX code at 50% horizontal resolution", then we're already talking about a potential difference in development time and cost. Both in optimization and for QA teams.
Which leads to a Halo Infinite situation where the devs don't even know where to turn to with so many platforms to optimize on.

The folks that would have normally waited years to buy into the system due to price are being catered to with a low cost entry, and there's a good chance they are not the most hardcore discerning folks when it comes to graphics, so if sacrifices need to be made, then it may not be as big of an issue as folks on forums may be.

In my anecdotal experience, people who wait years for purchasing end-of-life product don't do it for console cost alone. They do it because the games library is already large and cheap too.
We're talking about those who purchased a One S in Black Friday 2018 for $250, or Black Friday 2019 for $230. The Series S will probably be more expensive than that and it wont' have a large library of new-gen games. So if you really only care about the good unmissable exclusives at a low price, you want the One S or even a second-hand One X, and not the Series S.

Currently its very unknown what developers will be targeting in terms of resolution for the future here. PS5 showcased a metric ton of titles going at native 4K here. There's still reconstruction and sliding resolution to be had. There's a lot of room to work with before needing to drop that far down in resolution unless you're attempting HFR, which shouldn't apply to XSS.

And as a studio, they should be prioritizing XSX and PS5 as their main platforms, XSS has more than enough effective power to keep up at a resolution 1/4 as deep.

I agree with what was said above about avoiding to bring Sony here. Regardless, you saw trailers, not games.
For either the PS5 or the SeriesX, I believe only the very early next-gen and current-gen games with a boost patch will be playing at native 4K. Just like many cross 7th-gen game remasters that played at 720p30 on the PS360 played at 1080p60 in the 8th-gen consoles. Once devs become more comfortable with the platform and want to take full advantage of the SeriesX to show graphics and effects (e.g. raytracing) you couldn't possibly see on the 8th-gen consoles, I doubt we'll see many full 4K titles, if at all.